Comment by imiric | Hacker News Reader

Comment by imiric | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> If we go back in time to the mobile phone era, just before the iphone was released, the mobile market was actually flourishing and very solid

If we go further back in time, mobile phones were bricks used only by business people and tech enthusiasts. They didn't have mass market appeal because the technology wasn't there yet. Once devices got to be more powerful, compact and capable, everyone wanted one and the market exploded.

I suspect the same is happening with XR. Nobody wants to strap on a giant and clunky headset. But do you really not see the mass appeal in a pair of smart sunglasses that augments computing in a way we haven't experienced before?

The technology has the potential to disrupt computing as we know it, but it's _really_ hard to get right, which is why the experimental stage has lasted for so long. XR is _much_ more complicated than any computer interface we've had so far, and requires advancements in several cutting edge tech to align: display, battery, computer vision, voice recognition, miniaturization, etc., and, of course, the price to come down.

There's a reason all these companies are pushing so hard for this. We're still a few years away from reaching the iPhone-like boom, but Apple getting into the field is a sign that this is not a fad. This first generation is obviously not a mass market product, but the tech and price will improve until it becomes one.

> If we go further back in time, mobile phones were bricks used only by business people [...]

But they were widely used by business people, and I’m assuming that was an important aspect of permeating into the other demographics.

To me, what happened with cellphones is similar to what happened with personal computers. It first entered households of people that needed them for work, and as the tech evolved, so did their recreational capabilities making them more appealing to the mass market.

AR/VR devices are attempting this the other way around: their current use cases seem to be mostly recreational, and we are hoping they will eventually come up with some productivity use cases. Someone in this thread talked about how they are surprised that tablets have sort of flopped, and I feel it’s because of similar reasons. Sure there are now more and more ways to be productive on a tablet, but it’s still more of a consume-centric experience and I believe that’s the reason they haven’t replaced laptops. Time will tell.

> But they were widely used by business people, and I’m assuming that was an important aspect of permeating into the other demographics.

Similarly to how VR headsets are used by gamers and tech enthusiasts today. Just like VR for gaming, not everyone was willing to pay exhorbitant prices to lug around a briefcase of a phone, and use it only for poor quality phone calls.

> AR/VR devices are attempting this the other way around: their current use cases seem to be mostly recreational, and we are hoping they will eventually come up with some productivity use cases.

Sure, but the actual current use case doesn't matter. Once the capabilities, price and user experience improve, it will become more appealing to a mass audience.

Think of the iPhone: there were certainly devices that had the same functionality of "an iPod, a phone, and an internet mobile communicator" before it. But Apple saw the right opportunity when the tech got good and cheap enough to vastly improve the user experience and expand the capabilities beyond just a mobile phone. It's what they're good at.

> Someone in this thread talked about how they are surprised that tablets have sort of flopped

But tablets didn't flop. They got merged into 2-in-1s, foldables, "phablets", etc. They've certainly replaced laptops for many users. The only reason productivity is limited on devices like the iPad is because Apple wants to, for whatever reason (possibly to avoid cannibalizing sales of their other products?). But the iPad is still selling well, AFAIK, and many professionals use it. Google and Android never prioritized the tablet form factor, so it understandably lags behind. So productivity is restricted mostly because of software, and the touch interface makes it more suitable for consuming content. If you need to be productive and the software is not a problem, you add a mouse and keyboard, and there's your 2-in-1.

> Sure, but the actual current use case doesn't matter. Once the capabilities, price and user experience improve, it will become more appealing to a mass audience.

I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I think you've missed their point here.

Market penetration of mobile phones was (initially) driven by the advantages they provided as a work tool. This growing market that was willing to pay helped drive the cost vs. utility down to the point where non-business use cases became viable.

Goggles with screens in them have had a very different history. There are exceedingly few people/careers who have gotten a good ROI from buying and using a headset, so most sales are driven by entertainment (and a small number of enthusiasts).

Apple (and Meta) can definitely continue to subsidize the development of this technology to bring the price down, but expanding from a niche market for entertainment devices to a market of professional tools is the opposite of what's worked for new technologies in the past.

I get that, but my point is that it doesn't matter what the initial use case that drives adoption is. Whether the ROI is financial/business, or enjoyment from entertainment, there are early adopters willing to pay high prices and tolerate the poor UX for the tech to improve.

This is clearly Apple's angle with this product. They understand that this is not a mass market product, but are betting on their brand appeal for it to sell well enough to finance later generations.

You might be right that it won’t matter in the long run. But I’d argue that targeting gamers and tech enthusiasts is going to make it harder to reach mass market adoption.

For instance, with computers, laptops and cell phones being first and foremost business tools it was common in the early days for those to be provided by the employers. That really played a big role in normalizing their presence around the home before they became mainstream products.

I have a hard time seeing a similar thing happening with these goggles, but I’m far from being an expert in these things.

Yes, that was what I was trying to articulate. Thank you for phrasing it more clearly.

> If we go further back in time, mobile phones were bricks used only by business people and tech enthusiasts. They didn't have mass market appeal because the technology wasn't there yet.

Mobile phones are something of a special case, if you ask me, because the technology for voice calls and several days of standby time arrived quite a bit before affordable service did.

In 1988 a stockbroker could make calls from his speedboat for $250/month, and by 1998 a teenager could call his parents after soccer practice for $10/month.

You could describe that as "the technology getting there" because of more efficient radio signalling schemes enabling lower prices. But you could also say the user offering was unchanged[1], and the most important difference was the price.

[1] Except for SMS and the snake game

Reply on news.ycombinator.com